Monthly Archives: March 2014

I will discuss Hobby Lobby and their views on birth control. That is it. The entire hour will be devoted to the problems and flaws that the Hobby Lobby case has and the arguments made before the Supreme Court. See the previous blog post for more information on where I will be coming from on the podcast.

I don’t believe that corporations should be considered people. As such they should not be considered to have faith, beliefs, or any sort of spiritual holdings that would be protected under the law. The feelings and beliefs of the owners should be considered to be distinct from the operation of the business. Sure, the owners can choose to serve certain markets by only producing kosher foods or by keeping closed on whatever day your religion feels should be the day of rest. But the corporation, in and of itself, should not be able to claim religious holdings.

But let’s just assume for a second that SCOTUS would be open to holding that the beliefs of the corporation cannot be considered distinct from the beliefs of the owners. This is a fairly conservative court and I can see that line of reasoning, as flawed as it might be, as being one that would potentially come up in a decision supporting the idea that a business cannot be forced to provide insurance that provides services or drugs that are in violation of the religious beliefs of the business owners. Remember, I equate premiums paid in lieu of salary to be no different than salary itself and as such any premiums paid should be considered as being paid for by the work provided by the employee and not as being paid for by the employer. So it is ultimately my assertion that any claim that a business is paying for oral contraception provided by health insurance received in lieu of salary is a false claim because it is paid for by that employee and that employee only.

However, if SCOTUS would come to a ruling that the Affordable Care Act could not require benefits provided in lieu of pay to violate the religious beliefs of the owners then the persons bringing such a suit (in this case Hobby Lobby) should be required to prove that they are being harmed and as such that the requirement that each plan provide oral contraception at 100% first dollar is, in fact, a violation of their belief systems.

So what is Hobby Lobby claiming here? Well, in their open letter they believe that the Affordable Care Act is requiring them to provide “abortion causing drugs”. To me, in order for them to not have their case thrown out, they should have to prove that the drugs that their employees get in lieu of salary are, in fact, abortion causing drugs.

The simple answer is that they obviously are not abortion causing drugs. Oral contraception does not work if you are pregnant. However, there is an archaic and often repeated belief that birth control pills can prevent implantation of an already created embryo. While this would not technically be considered an abortion, it would still be a violation of the beliefs of the owners of Hobby Lobby who would believe that artificial means of preventing an embryo from implanting would be morally equivalent to abortion and as such a sin in their eyes. Unfortunately for them studies have been done that show no such thing as being true. There is no evidence that oral contraception prevents implantation. Oral contraception only prevents ovulation or fertilization. So in order to not have their case thrown out and prove that they have been harmed by the Affordable Care Act, Hobby Lobby should be required to provide data that contradicts these studies in a meaningful way. They should be required to show that the law is, in fact, requiring them to cover abortion causing medications. If they cannot do this (which I suspect they cannot since I can find no contradictory study to the one sighted in the NY Times) then the case should be thrown out on its face. Hobby Lobby can prove no harm here because it cannot prove the drugs the plans provided for their employees in lieu of pay cause abortions. As such they can prove no violation of their beliefs.

*Made some minor edits, removing arguments about “standing” because I don’t want the argument to be about what standing is. The argument should be focused on what Hobby Lobby should be required to prove.

As it had been speculated, yesterday former Louisiana Governor and convicted felon Edwin Edwards announced his candidacy for Louisiana’s 6th Congressional District. And as I had predicted, there are Democrats in Louisiana who are rallying to his cause and there are national articles putting a spotlight on this spectacle already.

When Edwin Edwards was Governor, he was credited as being a populist and as being someone who did some good for the people of Louisiana. Edwards was applauded, and rightly so, for being a staunch supporter of civil rights. He appointed minorities and women to positions more than any of his predecessors. But ultimately he will be remembered for his corruption conviction and 8 year prison term. Some might ask “as long as he helped people, who cares if he skims a little off the top for himself?”. Well, I care. You cannot tell me that there are no other qualified people who can do the right thing while not having a tarnished image of a crook. The ends do not justify the means. His conviction means that he put his own needs and desires above the needs of the people of Louisiana. And he has not changed…

Why do I suggest that he hasn’t changed? Well, his candidacy is all about him. He is someone who seems to be addicted to the public spotlight. He also doesn’t care that the spotlight is going to be an embarrassment to to the people of Louisiana and to the Democratic party whose banner he is running under. David Vitter was supposed to be the embarrassment to Louisiana running for office this time.

And he isn’t even a good banner holder for the party. One of the first things he said in his announcement was that he would not have voted for the Affordable Care Act. Seriously? The guy who is supposed to be able to bring out the minority vote in an off year election is going to be running on a platform that includes his opposition to the signature piece of legislation that President Obama was able to get passed?

And remember, it was Edwards who helped make it possible for folks like Bobby Jindal to run on his fraudulent ethics reform campaign. He put a recent face to the historical corruption that existed in Louisiana. Do we really want that rehashed? Do we really want to hand the GOP the ammunition it needs to continue the claims that the Democratic Party is about corruption in this state (while allowing the Republicans to hide their own corruption)? I do not want that.

But ultimately this is about doing the right thing. The right thing would be for Edwin Edwards to just go away. But since he seems incapable of doing so, the right thing for the rest of the Louisiana Democratic Party would be to just openly shun him and his candidacy. And let’s say he is able to pull off a miracle and win that seat. Will it be worth it? Of course not. Again, the ends do not justify the means. Selling out our values for a seat makes us no better than the GOP. And if you cannot win the seat in the right way, then perhaps it is time to pack up shop and go home.

Have you ever wished you had a way to make sure that the items you purchase are not funding causes you disagree with? The old fashioned way of protesting when companies supported causes you did not agree with was to join a large group and to make a large show of it and hope others will join in. Well, I am going to talk to Austen Hoogan, creator of the idea called CottBot, and discuss his upcoming crowd-funding campagn to support this free mobile application. Instead of boycotting one business for violating one of your ideals, you can boycott all businesses who violate all your ideals.

Then I will be discussing #retakeCongress, the hashtag I will be using to discuss the upcoming 2014 elections and what needs to be done to take Congress back. First up is Ron Dickey, candidate for Congress in the MS01 Congressional district. I will discuss with Ron how his campaign is going, what his priorities would be when he goes to Congress, and how he intends on making that a reality.

And then I will discuss the candidacy of Edwin Edwards for Congress in Louisiana’s 6th congressional district. Yup, he went ahead and did it. And I will talk about it some more becuase it is important.

Those issues, tweet of the week, headlines, words of redneck wisdom and more this Wednesday at 8PM Central on Liberal Dan Radio, Talk From The Left, That’s Right.

I will first discuss a horrible attack ad I saw today by Cynthia Hedge-Morrell and explain why she is no better than Senate Conservatives.

I review what happened at CPAC. Straw polls, random musing, speeches, hypocrisy and all the other “good stuff” that can only come from a convention of tea party supporters.

I will also bring up charter schools. With what is going on in New York there has been some additional chatter happening about if these charter schools best serve the community. Some schools may have success. But at what cost?

Finally, Bobby Jindal has yet again proven himself to be a hypocrite. I will explain why this is nothing new.

Those topics, headlines, tweet of the week, and more on Liberal Dan Radio: Talk From The Left, That’s Right.

Good old Vlad Putin is at it again, this time invading the Ukraine. Of course this means the Conservatives are at it again as well. The warmonger side of the party just wants to blow everything up it can. The tea party side finds fault with everything Obama does. And some people who are sandwiched in between the establishment GOP and the Tea Party are proving themselves to be major hypocrites (beyond the normal Conservative hypocrisy).

In news related to the Ukraine, people are now hailing Palin as a genius for supposedly predicting Putin going into Ukraine. They are also suggesting that Obama is handling the situation irresponsibly by “missing” security meetings. I will go into why that is a bunch of rubbish as well.

A student in New Jersey is suing her parents to cover tuition for High School and College and for other expenses pertaining to her being dependent on her parents for support. She does seem like a spoiled brat but I will discuss why many people are missing some very important facts here and how the parents are no angels either.

I will discuss what I am giving up for Lent and discuss if the lenten season is really a sacrifice to those of use who are not land locked.

Finally, I will go over some of the shootings I have discussed from Merritt Landry to Marissa Alexander.

That, headlines, tweet of the week, words of redneck wisdom and more tonight on Liberal Dan Radio: Talk From The Left, That’s Right.